There has been some terrific debate on my theorizing of what I call “augmented reality.” In brief, I reject “digital dualism”, the tendency to view the on and off line as separate spheres, and instead argue that we should view them as enmeshed, creating what I call “augmented reality.” [I talk more about this here.]

One criticism has been that the augmented reality perspective somehow obscures the important ways in which the on and offline are different. I agree that the spheres indeed have different properties. I write here and here about, for example, how atoms tend to be more scarce than bits. Further, I write here about how these important differences are best viewed through the augmented lens.

It is this last point which I feel is most important in responding to the specific criticisms given by Zeynep Tufekci over Twitter. It is my hope that future conversations on this topic take into account the points made in that short essay. I’ll post the debate, still ongoing, below.

“

An interesting dynamic of the “digital activist” sphere in the Arab Uprisings is how many know each other offline, across nations.

Here, I am linking to my essay on this blog that deals with how the augmented paradigm does not obscure the differences between atoms and bits, but instead provides a better language to talk about these important differences.

Yesterday, Sang-Hyoun Pahk delivered a critique of the usage of the term augmented reality on this blog. First, thank you, criticism of this term is especially important for me (and others) because augmented reality is the fundamental unit of analysis about which I seek to describe.

The conversation picks up again for a third day.

“

Same in my region. Not everyone is as wired as US. $$$ RT @techsoc @nathanjurgenson in the region…. Online/offline not always integrated.

Yesterday, Sang-Hyoun Pahk delivered a critique of the usage of the term augmented reality on this blog. First, thank you, criticism of this term is especially important for me (and others) because augmented reality is the fundamental unit of analysis about which I seek to describe.

Comments 3

Jeremy Antley — October 11, 2011

Excellent gathering of thoughts on this and the following post. Based on my own studies of Russian peasant behavior during the Imperial period, I wonder if disagreement on the topic of 'augmented reality' stems from not recognizing the full mobility potential of information, it's ability to cross into either the analog or digital spheres with their varied norms, tactics and utilizations. This would help explain why Facebook influences both on/off-line activity. Both atoms and bits, as you describe in both posts, are essentially units of information and it is my belief that this characteristic binds them both in what you have termed 'augmented reality'.

From my own observations and conjectures, the reason people hold to the belief that the analog/digital spheres of activity are separate, distinct entities stems from the asynchronous effects produced between the operation of both. This is because 'atoms' are, in general, governed by low mobility potential, that is the reluctance of the form to undergo transformation through transmission. A published book will remain the same even if you and I read the same volume at different points in time. However, 'bits' are, in general, governed by high mobility potential, that is they have a high capacity to undergo transformation through transmission. There are numerous examples of how digital artifacts undergo rapid change through their use, but I would also point out that oral rumors, clearly in the analog realm, also embrace the same high degree of mutability. Observers tend to view the analog and digital realms as separate because, in their juxtaposition, the asynchronicity between the two, in their capacity to be modified, is often great. Yet the information created in analog/digital realms flows across both, evidenced, for example, by tweets linking to published books or essays, like those produced on this blog, or the reverse, where essays produce tweets.

Because of this, I would add that atoms are just as profuse as bits- yet the asynchronous effects between the two give atoms the appearance of being scarce in comparison to the relative abundance of bits. Asynchronicity between high & low mobility knowledge constructs both links analog/digital activity in an augmented reality conception and provides the illusion that they operate in separate spheres.

Strong and Mild Digital Dualism » Cyborgology — October 29, 2012

[...] And my critique has itself been counter-critiqued. I’ve responded to criticisms here, here, and here. Recently, observing this dialogue, Whitney Erin Boesel and Giorgio Fontana have worked to [...]

Comments are closed.

About Cyborgology

We live in a cyborg society. Technology has infiltrated the most fundamental aspects of our lives: social organization, the body, even our self-concepts. This blog chronicles our new, augmented reality.